About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 7, The City 3, Sf Moma 3, Olage 3, Us 3, Renee 3, Miller 2, Josh Vining 2, Mr. Gibner 2, Parcel 2, Bart Murphy 2, John Stewart 2, John Updike 2, Subsection 2, California 2, Jane Kim 1, Kim 1, Mr. Updike 1, Steve Barlgts 1, Miss Miller 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    December 4, 2012
    9:30 - 9:59am PST  

9:30am
like you said, you could make that vote today, take that vote today. >> i'm curious to know what my colleagues think. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you, i just wanted to reiterate my original question. my discussions with the department, specifically the department of dpw, it would be, they would agree to us rejecting this and sending it back and asking to come back with a street vacation rather than a major encroachment. so that's the course of action i would like to propose that we take today. >> so that sounds to me like it's a motion to reject this resolution. >> yes. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> amend the resolution as a rejection. >> mr. gibner indicated that the resolution before us to --. >> either up or down. >> is to approve the encroachment. i think it would require a motion to amend the
9:31am
resolution to reject and then to forward that resolution to the board. >> correct. >> so there's a motion -- there is an amendment to the table to reject. are there any objections? so -- and then on the motion itself as amended to reject, are there any objections? >> that would be to forward the amended resolution to the board with a recommendation to adopt it. >> yes. so without objection. thank you. thank you, mr. gibner. miss miller, could you please call item no. 2? >> item no. 2 is a resolution approving the transfer of air space parcel agreements at 15 one-third street. >> thank you, and this item is sponsored by supervisor jane kim. supervisor kim.
9:32am
>> thank you for hearing us today. this is the last piece of the puzzle of a larger process, dialogue and approvals process that has occurred between the city and san francisco museum of modern art to expand the current museum and to rebuild fire station 1. it is resolution approving and authorizing the director of real estate to execute an agreement of transfer of air space parcel at 151 third street to now the successor agency of redevelopment to the museum of modern art. this resolution would authorize the department to execute this agreement and here to talk about it in more detail is john updike from the department of real estate. >> thank you, supervisor kim, members. committee, john updike, director of real estate. and i thought this item was complicated, but maybe it's not in comparison. today we seek your positive recommendation for two
9:33am
transactions related to the expansion of the san francisco museum of modern art. the sf moma project calls for an expansion of the existing facility including a new approximately 200 foot tall building that extends into 3 different areas on to the city's fire station no. 1 at 676 howard, on to hunt street and on to air space owned by the redevelopment agency above 151 third street. the expansion project provides new space to properly display the fisher collection and other works of art. it enhances public access. it improves the city's cultural and public landscape, enhances tourism and therefore will improve general fund revenues. the board of supervisors previously approved what we termed a conditional land disposition and acquisition agreement, which is just fancy terminology for an exchange agreement to address conveying the needed rights to 676 howard and to hunt street. in
9:34am
exchange for the delivery of a new replacement fire station no. 1, which is now nearly completed at 935 folsom street, left to be addressed until now was an air space parcel. now owned by the successor agency to redevelopment, it lies between elevations 109.5 feet and 165.5 feet above sea level on a sloping plain as somewhat clearly shown on what i am about to show you. and my apologies, air space is very difficult to depict but we're going to do our best here. so we look at the overhead. the actual area of conveyance of here, this is looking at it from ground level looking at the facade. so that's the slight of air that is proposed to be conveyed. a different look with the building massing shown in black. the cross hatched area
9:35am
reflects the area to be sold. one more look. the existing facility with the new facility's facade. a different perspective looking down upon the property and you can see the height change with the new section. one more that i think might help, also a facade look. you can see how it rises from the existing site. so this parcel is already burdened with a deed restriction that severely limits its use and considering that restriction was appraised by a consultant appraiser to have zero fair market value, that is a value conclusion with which i concured. on october 12, 2012 the oversight board of the successor agency adopted 152012
9:36am
approving transfer of the air space parcel to the city through a negotiated transfer agreement. now we're before you with not only that agreement but the negotiated agreement to transfer this air space parcel from the city to sf moma. the deed limiting the use to the museum's nonprofit operations will remain in space. on november 10, 2011, the planning commission certified the final eir, adopted ceqa findings as found in your board package today. on january 10, 2012, the board of supervisors affirmed on appeal that certification. on january 24th, 2012, the board of supervisors rezoned the city properties involved in this project, that was through ordinance 1112, and adopted add its own those ceqa findings. these transactions now before you are within the scope of the
9:37am
project analyzed in the final eir, and the resolution today asks the board to adopt and incorporate by reference those same ceqa findings as set forth in the planning commission motion 18486 which is also included in your package. so i'm joined by representatives of sf moma, i ask for your positive recommendations so this matter can move forward to the december 11 board meeting which will allow us to remain on schedule for a closing of he is escrow in the first quarter of 2013. happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, mr. updike. if there are no further questions let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? >> thank you, supervisor, steve barlgts on behalf of the san francisco museum of modern art. john gave a clear explanation of what's going on. i just want to add a few things. the reason this transaction
9:38am
lagged behind the others is because this air space parcel was not owned by the city but instead the redevelopment agency. the plan from the beginning was the redevelopment agency would do the conveyance. earlier this year you recall the state of california dissolved the redevelopment agency and they became unable to do the conveyance. so this transaction lagged behind. the successor agency and we worked together in such a way that the state of california would approve it. this is the last piece of the transaction that needs to occur so that the 4 properties can be combined and the expansion project can be built on the 4 properties together and for the fire station that's almost complete now on folsom street to be conveyed to the city.
9:39am
a condition of the conveyance of the new fire station to the city is that we, sf moma, have a building permit. that building permit is being processed now and will be ready to be issued after the first of the year so that this conveyance is necessary so that the building permit can issue and the fire station can transfer, we can demolish the existing fire station and begin construction. we think the construction will start in about march of 2013, so it's very timely that this resolution be adopted now so that the transactions can close in january. don young, one of the project managers from moma, is also here and we appreciate your consideration of this transaction. all the city's staff time that's gone into it. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else that would like to speak
9:40am
on this item? >> ronald ravine, i don't want to hold up the tenants but i want to say something on this. i hope, supervisor wiener, this is one of the things that you are opposed to. i hope somebody at the last minute will file another appeal against this thing because one of the reasons people wait until the last minute is because there is so much gobbledygook, so much changing of zoning and so many meetings that happen that transfer this from that and this and that and the old redevelopment agency transfers it to the city, it's almost like 3 card monte i hope someone who is directly affected by this thing, i heard something changed from 109 feet to 169 feet but this is going to be 200 feet. in other words i hope someone who knows more about this thing than i do will file something at the last minute to oppose it. thank you. >> thank you, is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor kim.
9:41am
>> thank you, just a point of clarification, actually. this project hs already been appealed and this project was actually certified by the board last year, so that has already gone through regarding this project, but this has largely been approved by the board, this is just one final piece of a project that we've already, that this board has already supported and would love the positive recommendation of the land use committee. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor kim. colleagues, can we adopt this with a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. thank you. miss miller, could you please call the next item? >> item no. 3 is an ordinance amending administrative code, chapter 37, for hearings on tenant allegations of land lord harassment. >> thank you, we're waiting for supervisor olage to join
9:42am
us. so, miss miller, could you please see -- oh, here is supervisor olage so, supervisor olage, item no. 3 has been called and on our hearings on tenant allegations of land lord harassment to recover possession of the tenant's unit. supervisor. >> colleagues, before you is a proposed ordinance which would amend admin code chapter 37, the residential rent stablization and would add a new section, 37.9, which would lay out an administrative procedure for whenever a tenant submits a report alleging
9:43am
wrongful attempt to recover possession of the tenant's unit to the rent board. this procedure is outlined on page 16 of your packet. it would require the rent board to send a notice of receipt and a summary of the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants regarding possession of and eviction from residential rental units to any tenant who has filed a report of alleged harassment. it also allows the executive director of the rent board to schedule an investigative hearing on the allegations before a board administrative law judge where both the tenant and the land lord may appear to make oral and written presentations including providing witnesses. colleagues, the language before you is significantly different from the original language i sble -- introduced during the summer which
9:44am
provided damages and additions to the list of harassment. after discussions with the lean wolf of the rent board, the city attorney and jeff buckly from the mayor's office, we feel what is before you is a simple administrative change which provides a clear process for reporting alleged harassment claims for both tenants and land lords and also steers clear of any legal issues from prop m there are several members of the public who wish to speak to this day. it is considerably watered down from what we had proposed. >> any presentations by department staff or supervisor olage >> no, that's really all i have. >> okay, is the rent board
9:45am
here? >> no, i guess not. >> has the rent board considered this or held a hearing on it, made a recommendation? >> not that i'm aware of. >> any other questions, colleagues, of supervisor olage? then let's open this up for public comment. i don't have any speaker cards. actually, yes, we do. justice morgan, josh vining, followed by bart murphy. >> i'd like to be alloted time before my comment for a point of information. the public was informed that this meeting on this specific issue was in another room. no. 2, on the
9:46am
hard copy it says it's under consideration for tomorrow, which is not noticed, and the announcement from alicia miller is that it's considered the 11 *t. i'd like that cleared up before my comment, please. i only attended because we were misinformed about the location. that is not a comment on the subsection 37.9. point of order, point of information. could i have a comment, please? >> please continue your testimony and we'll address it afterwards. please continue. >> i was the only unpaid tenant rep in the tender loin sro mismanaged by the john stewart company episcopal community services and financed
9:47am
by trent ward. i said under oath, with a 42 1/2 million dollar budget to manage our building why don't we have an elevator 30 out of 36 months having to crawl up 5 1/2 stories to her unit. i went from having bronchitis to pulmonary disease and controlled diabetes to uncontrolled diabetes because of lack of an elevator. when i said i was getting retaliatory behavior by the john stewart staff, they said that's not our job. i am still paying for that. i found out 2 years after the staff they claim i owe them rent when my retaliatory eviction was not about nonpayment of rent. i am
9:48am
having problems getting housing because of this. i want property management companies to be included in subsection 37.9 and let's have some sun shine laws applied about how we are harassed after the point legally as well as on site. thank you. >> good afternoon, my name is josh vining, i'm an organize er with the mission sro collaborative. i am just here in support of the hassle free housing and i just wanted to talk a little bit about the work we do at the mission sro collaborative because we go out into residential hotels in the mission district 5 days a week and do direct outreach to tenants who live in those sro's. and what we find is that there is land lord harassment happening in sro's and i'm sure
9:49am
it's happening in all other housing types in san francisco. the way that the market is right now is a disincentive really for tenants to be able to bring up any of their concerns for repairs or modifications that need to be made within their rooms. what i hear from tenants, you know, week after week is that they are afraid of retaliation from their land lord. they are afraid that for simply standing up and asserting their rights that they have under the rent ordinance that they are going to be targeted by their landlord for some other action. thinking back to 2008 with proposition m, i know a lot of us had really high hopes that there was going to be sort of a major sea change in the way that, in the way that land lord and tenant disputes was happening and with retaliation but i think that as supervisor
9:50am
olage said, this has been different, this is different than the original version but i think that it's a step in the right direction. the last thing i'll say about it really quick is that currently the way that tenants get their issues addressed is through a lawyer and there aren't a lot of attorneys out there who are trying to take individual cases about harassment. most attorneys want a class action lawsuit for any sort of tenant-land lord issues. i'm out of time. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is bart murphy, i'm a san francisco rent board commissioner for the last 17 years. i'm a san francisco landlord. i am asking you to continue this matter to the call of the chair, not that i or other people might be specifically
9:51am
opposed to the issue, it's just that it's come up, i would suggest that the committee or the proposer to the committee is rushing their fences somewhat in putting this on for today with a referral to the full board tomorrow and that this matter would benefit from some consideration both at the rent board commission and further discussion amongst various stake holders. this has not been on the agenda of the rent board at all to my knowledge. i go to meetings, i get an agenda, it's never been brought up, it's never been mentioned in new business or old business. we get monthly statistics of reports of various actions of the rent board, notices served, claims made. this issue has never been brought up and if it is an issue it's worthy of a discussion amongst the commission. supervisor olage will recall when she was on the planning commission, the planning commission from time to time
9:52am
would weigh in, would typically weigh in on suggestions of amendments to the planning code and would make recommendations to the board of supervisors on changes to be made. that's the process that's used. if you take the time to read the san francisco rent ordinance, there is a, one of the main functions of the commission is to review proposals and to make recommendations to the board of supervisors for ordinance changes and here's an ideal situation to follow our ordinance in that matter. in the meantime, there is a whole process in existence for tenants to make complaints of alleged wrongful eviction based on harassment or other issue at the rent issue. there's a process to be followed so it's no harm, no foul, to continue this to the call of the chair and have a discussion on it. thank you. >> thank you.
9:53am
susan wiseberg, followed by brook turner, renee' currin. >> ma'am, choose the other microphone. >> my name is susan wiesberg, i'm a volunteer counselor at the san francisco tenants union and i hear time after time reports from tenants of harassment by their land lords in an attempt to get them out mostly from low rent apartments. but i wanted to tell you one story that happened the other day that was so outrageous that it has kept me up at night. there was a young woman, a single mother of a school age child, a woman who was poor, very poor, but she's working, she's in school and she's paid her rent regularly. she's never missed a rent payment. first of all her landlord
9:54am
tried to evict her on trumped-up charges. she fought that eviction and won. this was followed by a month or so later an announcement from the landlord that they wanted her to leave so that they could sell the building to someone else. she refused that. they demanded that she give them the keys to the place so they could pass the keys on to any new owner, which they didn't have yet. then they told her that they were going to change the locks. when she said she would call the police if they changed the lock, the landlord came into her apartment when she wasn't there and went through her things. next she got a notice saying we want you to leave so we can raise the rent. so we're offering you a thousand dollars if you leave by the end of the month. and by the way, we won't return your security deposit. she refused that and next they
9:55am
offered her $2,000 if she would leave immediately. these now were coming in letters from a lawyer. finally she got a lawyer, a letter from a lawyer, cash for keys agreement saying, we're going to give you $2,000, you're going to give us the keys and we're arriving tomorrow to do this. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors, my name is brook turner, i'm the executive director of the coalition for better housing. i think today, supervisors, we have a case of the cart being put before the horse on this issue. i am troubled that no one from the rent board is here to discuss this because it obviously is something that's in their purview and should be discussed by the full board before it would come to you to have legislation that's forwarded through. i would ask
9:56am
that that attempt be made to have the rent board go through this because as far as we know, there hasn't been a huge onslaught of harassment allegations as chairman mar's says at the beginning of his introduction to the legislation. so we're unsure of why this is needed. obviously there are some harassment issues that go on in these buildings. sounds like the sro has a number of them. i certainly don't represent those buildings but i respect the idea that they should be held to the same standards that other land lords in town should be held to. but we need statistics. we have no statistics, we have no idea why this is being brought up -- well, i guess we know why but we don't know the numbers really being attributed to this problem. if there are a lot of
9:57am
complainting that folks at tenant associations and advocates are hearing from, why haven't they gone to the rent board? that troubles me a lot. i would ask you to continue this until the opportunity for the rent board to talk about this and we can talk about this at the rent board. we have been through many, many hearings at the rent board where everyone gets up and talks about their perspective and that's happen. i'd like to see that happen if it's allowable by you. thank you very much. >> thank you. renee' currin, kendra frashman, victoria hamilton. >> hi, i'm renee' currin, also a counselor at the tenants' union. my understanding is the rent board isn't handling
9:58am
harassment per se as a decrease of services so that may be why they are not hearing a lot of those cases. that may be my misunderstanding but that's what i've generally told tenants, you know, to try to call it a quiet enjoyment issue and i think that can be very discouraging to tenants, that there's a difficult way to quantify these issues. we do have a lot of tenants coming in with, like, stacks of superficial or unsubstantiated eviction notices. a lot of perfectly educated tenants who think that means they have to move out don't understand that there has to be a summons and complaint. we have people being given verbal eviction notices, eviction notices over
9:59am
email, you know, who come in and it's a very intimidating situation and if you are being harassed by your landlord it's very difficult to then go to this author at a timive body like the rent board and make a formal complaint about your landlord who has already been retaliating against you for lesser issues and, as others have said, in the rental market that we have right now people are very intimidated and afraid and not understanding their rights. thanks. >> hello, my name is kendra, i'm with the mission sro collaborative. thanks for hearing me today. i'm here to speak in support of the ordinance. it's been a while in coming. i've been counseling tenants for